Rachel Maddow on some necessary truths in wake of Obama win

  • Kevin Herbert

    Rachel blows some hot air indeed:

    1. "The deficit is dropping"….WHAT DID SHE SAY???….the deficit is $16.2 trillion and the current reduction plan before Congress is $668 billion over I believe one year. It'll take 30 years to get the ecomomy back to where it was in 2000 comparatively.

    Check out Ron Paul's site for his keen analysis of the fact that there's only one party in the US Federally…run by the same warmonerging shadow government that's run the US since Eisenhower.

    2.. " Unemployment is under 9%"…….multiple non-partisan employment experts say it's closer to 20%….

    3. "There's feasible ideas about real problems"…where? from whom?……aboutr what…surely not foreign policy..or economic policy…or poverty…and so on.

    As a general comment there's not ONE feasible deficit reduction plan around.

    Obama is just another neocon stooge.

  • bill giltner

    Not really all of that is in fact true. Maddow is offensively sanctimonious.

  • examinator

    It's a pity you two gentlemen didn't go back to the original 15 minute version of the truncated one posted the context was much clearer . If you had, it listed her sources and of the five I checked her researchers/script writers were spot on.
    As for her style.. meh

  • Kevin Herbert


    Are you for real? What an absolutely inane post…you haven't proved anything.

    If you think you have, you should share your research with us…c'mon don't be shy.

    PS: just a small tip……quoting someone's 'research' doesn't validate the research…but of course you knew that as a seasoned media researcher & analyst..

    • examinator

      You said ["Are you for real?"] ….sadly yes! Much as I try to be a figment of your tortured imagination ;-)

      If you had watched the full piece 15minutes she listed her sources it is those sources that I checked to Govt (the real one not the shadow one) sources and they are on the spot.
      BTW Ron Paul is neither a credible source nor is he up to date with his numbers.
      He is a fringe right wing element….. You may like to consider the neuropsychology/ behavioural research of the conservative and conspiratorial mind set. Both tend to look for some one else to blame for events they don't like or don't understand. They tend to see things through what their *belief* structures usually rejecting inconvenient facts. That is science not belief. neither is it a criticism merely a set of contributive facts. It doesn't imply anything beyond a natural tendencies differences between people. NB this is not a binary state it is highly variable.

      Ron Paul's 'shadow government' concept is called influence. One that George Washington and later Abe Lincoln complained about…..
      You might like to read "Critical Mass" by Philip Ball he shows how many independent actions by independent people with independent motives ,when looked at through the wider perspective there are generalised (statistical) patterns that may be mistaken for conspiratorial intent.
      The 'shadow government' when looked at it turns out to be generalised *instinctual * self interests.
      In the full episode 1st the day after the election, 2nd she was responding to specific conservative leading lights (?) responses to their refusal to accept (denials and conspiracy theories) Obama's being re-elected .

      She is far less vitriolic to her Conservative counter parts …

  • Kevin Herbert


    Assual you're babbling dross by the cubic metre. I can't be rebutting all of it, so I'll just show how far off the facts you are (again).

    You say Ron Paul isn't a credible source & is fringe right wing. Gee, for a US Congrtessman who you claim is a lighweight, he certainly has a lot to do with the mainstream political issue e.g his Audit the Fed Bill which passed the House of Reps 380 to 13, curnetly awaits the Senate vote on it. It's causing such a stink in DC and with the world's most powerful organisation (the US Fed) that its Chairman Ben Benanke has had to man the battelments as his insidious impact of the global economy is threatened. According to recent news reports, after some of his cronies in the U.S. House urged their colleagues to defeat Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Bill, Ben Bernanke sent them personal "letters of gratitude" for opposing an audit of the Federal Reserve.

    Thanks to the hard work of Ron Paul's tens of millions of mainly under 30 year old supporters across the US, their efforts failed, and Audit the Fed passed the House by the aforementioned overwhelming majority

  • Kevin Herbert

    Thanks to the hard work of Ron Paul's tens of millions of mainly under 30 year old supporters across the US, their efforts failed, and Audit the Fed passed the House by the aforementioned overwhelming majority.
    For the record, Ben Bernanke and his shadow government allies are responsible for many things, including:
    * The housing crisis and the resulting chaos of an economic bubble created by centrally planned interest rates and money manipulation;
    * Phony "stimulus" packages and $700 BILLION bank bailouts;
    * The US's current $16 TRILLION debt;
    * The destruction of the US middle class as fuel, food, housing, medical care, and education costs soar;
    * Piling up of trillions of dollars in reckless bailouts of Wall Street and international bankers;
    * Propping up of world banks, bailing out of cronies, and printing of fiat currency.
    Ron Paul has for the moment got these criminals on the ropes.

    He not a bad operator for a fringe polly.
    In other words stop skimming a trying to sound authoritative about matters you clearly do not grasp.

    • examinator

      First you started with self referential ad hominem.
      next this gem [Gee, for a US Congrtessman? who you claim is a lighweight?,] Apart from the appalling spelling (do you know how to set spell check?) I did NOT say he was a lightweight. This type of false arguing is called a *straw man argument* i.e. you misinterpret what I say so that you can burn it down rather than address what actually I said
      Next you offer his work as a congressman as part of a committee as proof of his expertise…in what …he was a doctor it doesn't prove his bona fides . He is a republican congressman from Texas since 1997 yet isn't highly regarded by his own side of politics much less by the Dems . e.g. He's not a Ted Kennedy who was highly respected by both sides.
      It seem obvious to me that you don't know how US politics works.
      e.g. many of the seats once elected never get challenged… ( by comparison here in Aust seat is contested). What it says is that US politics is often gerrymandered because their boundaries are politically drawn up. Therefore neither his longevity nor his mandatory service on committees isn't proof of anything really. Hence that is called non sequitor argument i.e. what you are asserting it doesn't follow as being proof
      As for the 10's of millions of supporters well I'd like to see the proof at best that's 10% of the voting public. For comparison Pauline Hanson had similar voter support levels but only a fool and an ignorant one would suggest that her hair brained ideas were even possible let plausible.
      Frankly Kevin you have offered nothing that validates your emotional response.
      BTW your final ad hom is also without foundation …I have 30 years experience and a degree in related topics.

  • Ned

    Ron Paul has given his last address to Congress and retires.
    If only, he would migrate here and take over; either the 'Welsh born' lady's job or the 'English borm' person's task.

  • Kevin Herbert


    he's one amazing clear political thinker …a 21 st century Thomas Jefferson

  • examinator

    Via Manus perhaps?
    Well it'd be cheap

  • kevin herbert

    As a general comment I have to say that Whitlam's free uni policy resulted in many sub standard graduates, an example of which we are witnessing bury his credibility with every inane post.

    I will comment no more on such dross.